This brief update highlights the latest headlines in cosmetic safety and regulations, ranging from FDA alerts about banned substances in nail products, to legislative efforts in the EU and France to curb harmful "forever chemicals." Additionally, critical recalls and judicial rulings affecting consumer safety and corporate accountability are examined.
FDA Crackdown: Methylene Chloride in Nail Polish Removers
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued stern warnings regarding methylene chloride, a banned substance detected in four gel nail polish removers. Also labeled as dichloromethane or methyl bichloride, the toxic solvent has been prohibited in cosmetics since 1989 and was found in concentrations as high as ~93%, report Fox 26 Houston and Citeline. Offenders include AL'IVER brand Nail Polish Quick Gel Remover, AL’IVER Professional Magic Remover, AIBRIT Gel Nail Polish Remover and BesTby Gel Nail Polish Remover.
Key concerns include:
- Exposure to the substance, which has been shown to cause cancer in animals and systemic toxicity in humans.
- Mislabeling or omission of the banned substance in product ingredient lists.
The FDA advises consumers to immediately discontinue using these products and report adverse effects via the agency’s MedWatch program. This marks a pivotal moment reminding manufacturers of their mandatory compliance with ingredient transparency and safety regulations.
Tackling 'Forever Chemicals' (PFAS) in Cosmetics
Governments across Europe are intensifying efforts to limit the production and use of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), often termed "forever chemicals," due to their persistent nature and health implications.
- France’s legislative progress: The French government has voted to restrict PFAS in cosmetics, apparel and other products when viable alternatives exist. Implementation begins in January 2026, per France 24.
- EU proposes PFAS ban in consumer goods: An EU draft proposal also aims to enforce significant restrictions on PFAS across consumer products, including cosmetics. Proponents highlight the urgent need to mitigate human exposure and environmental contamination, Reuters reported.
- Scientific insights: In relation, a recent study in Food and Chemical Toxicology examnined the labels of 765 cosmetic products to identify the presence of PFAS. Results indicated the hygiene products studied were free of PFAS, as were the sun protection creams and perfumes. The presence of PFAS in skin care was rare, as they were only found in one product for oily skin, one anti-redness product, two moisturizing products, two anti-wrinkle products and three facial masks. However, 18 of the makeup products, or 7.2% of the products examined, contained at least one PFAS (see study for full details and specified PFAS).
The authors concluded that since studies show certain PFAS and their potential precursors are present in various consumer products and clothing, they are of concern for the environment and, furthermore, other studies suggest that the cutaneous route is a potentially important route of human exposure. As such, the authors deemed it vital to examine human exposure taking place via cosmetic products.
Recalls Alert Consumers on Contaminated Products
The FDA recently highlighted recalls for two contaminated cosmetic products.
- Tec Italy Shampoo and Conditioner for Dry and Damaged Hair tested positive for Klebsiella oxytoca, a bacterium associated with severe infections. The products were distributed by Henkel Capital, SA.
- Papillon’s Starburst Tattoo Ink (Scarlet Red, CI#12390) was contaminated with Pseudomonas bacteria, a pathogen that poses risks of infection.
The FDA advises returning these products or disposing of them immediately, and affected users are encouraged to seek medical advice if adverse reactions occur.
Johnson & Johnson Faces Legal Setback in Talc Lawsuit Settlement
Finally, a proposed $10 billion settlement by Johnson & Johnson (J&J) to resolve more than 60,000 ovarian cancer lawsuits related to talc products was denied by U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Christopher M. López, per Asbestos.com and Reuters. C&T has been following this story (see previous report); notable this was the third failed bankrupcty filing attempt by J&J.
Key issues in the rejection included:
- Invalid claimant voting and last-minute vote changes.
- The proposed settlement disproportionately prioritized current claimants, jeopardizing resources for future plaintiffs.
J&J intends to litigate individual claims moving forward while maintaining the stance that its products are safe.
The need for regulatory rigor and corporate accountability is clearer than ever. The surge in legal attention to potentially unsafe contaminants underscores the necessity for vigilance across the cosmetic industry. From consumer education to improved legislation, ensuring transparency and safety should remain a collective priority.
